Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 22 May 2002 19:17:37 +0100
From:      Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com>
To:        Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, "Dorr H. Clark" <dclark@applmath.scu.edu>
Cc:        freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: hyperthreading: myth or legend? (was Re: hyperthreading? (was Re: question))
Message-ID:  <200205221917.37801.dfr@nlsystems.com>
In-Reply-To: <20020522172759.GV54960@elvis.mu.org>
References:  <20020514222840.GB1585@elvis.mu.org> <Pine.GHP.4.21.0205220940410.28331-100000@hpux38.dc.engr.scu.edu> <20020522172759.GV54960@elvis.mu.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 22 May 2002 6:27 pm, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Dorr H. Clark <dclark@applmath.scu.edu> [020522 09:58] wrote:
> > I don't have access to a fancy Xeon, I just have
> > a PIII dual-banger, so I'm relying on the list traffic.
> > To summarize the past two months:
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, John Baldwin wrote:
> >
> > On  Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, FiberOps wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, John Baldwin wrote:
> >
> > On 23-Apr-2002 FiberOps wrote:
> >
> > This final message was not followed up except by me,
> > although someone else informed me that while the CPUs
> > launch, FreeBSD can't run processes on them.
> >
> > So I thought I'd try to stir up an answer to the original question:
> >
> > For the latest Xeon motherboards, does FreeBSD 4.x stable
> > support hyperthreading?  If not, does the current TOT?
> > If not, why not?  Is gcc an issue or not?  If gcc is an issue,
> > would this be an obstacle for all gcc-based OSes,
> > not just FreeBSD, most prominently among these Linux?
> >
> > Clear answers gratefully appreciated,
>
> I'm glad you chose to take the word of a couple of people
> that have never used a hyperthreading board above what I've
> already told you.
>
> Here's what I know:
> The additional CPUs probe.
>
> A benchmarking utility reports equivelant performance to a 4 way
> machine.

One thing we don't do which we could use to squeeze extra performance is =
to=20
adjust the allocation of cpus to procs. When one hyperthread is idle on a=
 cpu=20
while the other one is running, the running hyperthread is faster since i=
t=20
can use more functional units. When we schedule a new thread, we should=20
prefer cpus which are totally idle (i.e. both hyperthreads are idle) and =
only=20
schedule two hyperthreads on a single cpu when there is no totally idle c=
pu=20
left.

--=20
Doug Rabson=09=09=09=09Mail:  dfr@nlsystems.com
=09=09=09=09=09Phone: +44 20 8348 6160


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200205221917.37801.dfr>